Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:57:36.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Boll Weevil Control Strategies: Regional Benefits and Costs*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

C. Robert Taylor  and
Ronald D. Lacewell
C. Robert Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A & M University
Ronald D. Lacewell
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A & M University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout the southern states and at the federal level, much attention is being focused on the appropriate strategy for controlling cotton insect pests, particularly the boll weevil. This paper presents estimated economic impacts to farmers, regions and consumers of implementing three alternative boll weevil control strategies. One strategy evaluated is a proposed boll weevil eradication program which involves integrating many controls including insecticides, reproduction-diapause control by early season stalk destruction, pheromone-baited traps, trap crops, early season control with insecticide, and massive releases of sterile boll weevils. The plan is to eradicate the boll weevil in the U.S., and then indefinitely maintain a barrier at the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent future weevil immigration to the U.S.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , July 1977 , pp. 129 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Article TA-12827. The assistance of Dan Hardin, Pat Patton and Cecil Ouxsbourn is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to P. J. von Blokland for supplying the Harold Callendar article [2]

References

[1]Ayer, Harry W. and Edward, G. Schuh. “Social Rates of Return and Other Aspects of Agricultural Research: The Case of Cotton Research in Sao Paulo, Brazil,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54, No. 4, Part 1, November 1972, pp. 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Callender, Harold. “The Mad Hatter in the Role of Economist,” New York Times, March 13, 1932.Google Scholar
[3]Cotton Incorporated. Cost Estimate for Beltwide Eradication of the Boll Weevil, 1974.Google Scholar
[4]Currie, J. M., Murphy, J. A. and Schmitz, A.. “The Concept of Economic Surplus,” Economic Journal, LXXXI, December 1971, pp. 741–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Duloy, J. M. and Norton, R. D.. “Prices and Incomes in Linear Programming Models,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57, No. 4, November 1975, pp. 591–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Harberger, A. C. “Three Basic Postulates for Applied Welfare Economics: An Interpretative Essay,” Journal of Economic Literature, IX, 1971, pp. 785–797.Google Scholar
[7]Hushak, Leroy J.“A Welfare Analysis of the Voluntary Corn Diversion Program, 1961 to 1966,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53, November 4, May 1971, pp. 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]National Cotton Council of America. Overall Plan for a National Program to Eliminate the Boll Weevil from the United States, December 4, 1973.Google Scholar
[9]Pimentel, D., Shoemaker, C. A., LaDue, E. L., Rovinsky, R. B. and Russell, N. P.. “Alternatives for Reducing Insecticides on Cotton and Corn: Economic and Environmental Impact,” Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Report, June 1976.Google Scholar
[10]Reutlinger, Shlomo. “A Simulation Model for Evaluating Worldwide Buffer Stocks,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58, No. 1, February 1976, pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]RvR Consultants. Evaluation of Pest Management Programs for Cotton, Peanuts, and Tobacco in the United States, Final Report on EPA Contract No. EQ4AC036, October 1975.Google Scholar
[12]Schmitz, Andrew and Seckler, David. “Mechanized Agriculture and Social Welfare: The Case for the Tomato Harvester,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52, No. 4, November 1970, pp. 569–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Subotnik, Abraham and Houck, James P.. “Welfare Implications of Stabilizing Consumption and Production,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58, No. 1, February 1976, pp. 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Takayama, T. and Judge, G. G.. “An Interregional Activity Analysis Model for the Agricultural Sector,” Journal of Farm Economics, 46,1964, pp. 349–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Taylor, C. R. “Determining Optimal Sterile Male Release Strategies,” Environmental Entomology, 5, 1976, pp. 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Taylor, C. R. and Frohberg, K.. “The Welfare Effect of Erosion Controls, Banning Pesticides, and Limiting Fertilizer Application in the Corn Belt,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59, No. 1, February 1977, pp. 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Taylor, C. R. and Swanson, E. R.. The Economie Impact of Selected Nitrogen Restriction on Agriculture in Illinois and 20 Other Regions of the U.S., Agricultural Economic Research Report No. 133, University of Illinois-Urbana, March 1975.Google Scholar
[18]Taylor, C. R., Blokland, P. J. Van, Swanson, E. R. and Frohberg, K. K.. A Description of Two National Spatial Equilibrium Models: I. Minimizing Production and Transportation Cost; II. Maximizing Surplus, Agricultural Economics Research Report No. 147, University of Illinois-Urbana, 1977.Google Scholar